G-8 Agrees To Halve Emissions By 2050

Nations Stop Short Of Tougher Stance On Greenhouse Gases; Urges China, India To Join Effort

(CBS/ AP)  Leading industrial nations on Tuesday endorsed halving world emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050, edging forward in the battle against global warming but stopping short of tough, nearer-term targets.

The Group of Eight countries - the United States, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Canada and Italy - also called on all major countries such as China and India to join in the effort to stem the potentially dangerous rise in world temperatures.

"This global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies," the G-8 said in a joint, five-page communique on climate.

The G-8 last year at a summit in Germany pledged to seriously consider the same target, and this year's Japanese hosts had hoped to solidify that commitment at the current meeting in Toyako, northern Japan.

The G-8 has been under pressure to voice commitments by wealthy nations to push forward stalled U.N.-led talks on forging a new accord to battle global warming by the end of next year to succeed the troubled Kyoto Protocol when its first phase expires in 2012.

The United States hailed the agreement as substantial progress, and a top European Union official called it a "new, shared vision" by wealthy nations on climate.

Tuesday's statement, however, addressed total world emissions rather than just those produced by wealthy countries, and critics attacked it for failing to go much beyond the G-8 statement last year. The communique also did not set a base year from which emissions would be cut.

"So little progress after a whole year of minister meetings and negotiations is not only a wasted opportunity, it falls dangerously short of what is needed to protect people and nature from climate change," said Kim Carstensen, Director WWF Global Climate Initiative.

Environmentalists have argued that the 50 percent reduction target was insufficient, and have clamored for ambitious midterm targets for rich countries to cut emissions by 2020. Japan itself has set a national target for cutting emissions by between 60 percent and 80 percent by 2050, but has not yet set a midterm goal.

"To be meaningful and credible, a long term goal must have a base year, it must be underpinned by ambitious midterm targets and actions," said Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. "As it is expressed in the G8 statement, the long term goal is an empty slogan."

Shorter-term targets have been much more difficult to reach consensus on, since they would require much quicker action than long-term goals. The United States, for instance, has argued that meeting a Europe-supported goal of reducing emissions by between 25 percent and 40 percent by 2020 is unrealistic.

In a nod to such disagreements, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda - the summit host - said the G-8 countries would set individual targets, and he did not mention a range. The statement also said that the issue would be discussed in talks on Monday among the 17-member Major Economies Meeting, a U.S.-led group working on climate change.

"The G-8 will implement aggressive midterm total emission reduction targets on a country-by-country basis," Fukuda said.

The agreement also urged nations to set high goals for energy efficiency, promote clean energy and technologies, and mobilize financing to help poor nations cut their own emissions and grapple with the effects of warming.

Scientists say urgent action is needed to make greenhouse gas emissions peak in the next 10 to 15 years, and then to steeply fall to limit the increase in global temperatures to under 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Temperatures beyond that could trigger the worst effects of warming, such as melting ice sheets and extreme weather.

The U.N.-led climate talks have been plagued by divisions. Quickly developing nations have urged wealthy countries to take the first, toughest steps. The United States, Japan and others, meanwhile, say they want to hear what up-and-coming economies like China are willing to do.

The Europeans have pushed harder for rich countries to reinvigorate talks by making unilateral commitments. Germany, for instance, has pledged to cut emissions by 20 percent by 2020, and by 30 percent if other countries join the effort.

The United States said Tuesday's pact fit with its stance that all major economies need to participate in reducing emissions.

"It has always been the case that a long term goal is one that must be shared. So the G-8 has offered today is a G-8 view of what that goal could be and should be but that can only occur with the agreement of all the other parties," said Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the agreement would support the U.N.-led effort.

"This is a strong signal to citizens around the world," he said in a statement, calling for a renewed push behind the U.N. talks, which aim to conclude a new pact at a meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009.

Meanwhile, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Tuesday that his first meeting with U.S President George W. Bush since taking office brought no progress toward bridging deep disagreements between the former Cold War foes.

Deeply wary of creeping Western clout in former Soviet republics and satellite states, Russia adamantly opposes the Bush administration's plans to deploy missile defense installations in Central Europe and its support for bids by Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO.

[wardoglrs]

jimfinster wrote
Certainly global warming will cause great geopolitical instability, as populations are forced to move due to rising water, lack of food and water, etc.
That is why all the govts are so concerned.
..................................................

Governments are Mobs plain and simple. And you would be foolish to think other wise

[AlwaysSmiling]

You know, it''s really simple. As far as the "developing" or "up and coming" countries are concerned... If we say "Either you produce this product in such a way as it doesn''t harm the environment (in other words, GREEN), or we won''t buy it from you." Money talks, BS walks. Simple as that.

Then, you say the same things to the industries in the First World countries also. "Either you start making the real changes to your process, or we don''t buy your product."

If they don''t make the changes, and they go under because no one buys their products, they''re STILL NOT PRODUCING Greenhouse gasses anymore.

Have a great day:)
Patrick.

[fiberglass3]

This isnt a problem that we want to leave for our grandchildren to clean up. Its our responsibility to start working on the problem today.

We ban smoking in restaurants because of the concern of second hand smoke, yet first hand vehicle exhaust is just fine???

[kyboy74]

Before me is the April 1975 issue of NEWSWEEK magazine. In a back-page article of that issue, the climate alarmists inform the reader that " there are ominous signs that the earth''s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically", predicting a "dramatic decline in food production" . "Just about every nation on earth" would be affected by food shortage. Scientists urged government officials to take ''urgent action'' to stop the threat. What was this ''impending doom''? Would you believe --GLOBAL COOLING ?! That''s right--the self-made ''experts'' were sounding the warning ! TIME magazine also presented similiar articles in the 70s. Again in 1992, NEWSWEEK presented more ''facts'' about the impending doom of an ICE AGE, the cause of which was attributed to -THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT ! The warning has changed -just a little bit. NOW it is the dire threat of GLOBAL WARMING ! What was NEWSWEEKS response to this gross inconsistency ? They were so sure they were right then -- but they KNOW they are right now..yeah,right ! It is the epitomy of ignorance and arrogance to think that man can either create or significantly remediate the climate. Reading Genesis 8:21-22, one will realize that any idea of a catastrophic, disastrous effect of climate change on this earth is foolish and absurd. That one scripture refutes ALL the arguments of the ''doom and gloom climatologists''. To think that man can in some way alter the course of God''s earth is unbounded arrogance !

[kuei12]

By 2050? Aren''t we all supposed to die in 2012?

[dumbocrat]

Sounds like it is time to buy cheap land in the Yukon.

I just read some interesting material about the incredible fluctuations in CO2 levels and just how difficult it is to take meaniful measurements. Example:

"In a single week this fall, they reported, wildfires in Southern California released 7.9 million metric tons of CO2 -- equal to 25% of the monthly fumes from every car, truck, factory and power plant in the state."

And of course how forest and other sea algeas absorb the CO2. The CO2 measurements in the atmosphere were linked to areas of drought and forrest fires in many cases and then the numbers were very different on later readings.

[jimfinster]

Certainly global warming will cause great geopolitical instability, as populations are forced to move due to rising water, lack of food and water, etc.

That is why all the govts are so concerned.

[dumbocrat]

Posted by CBS_Oliver at 05:04 PM : Jul 08, 2008

thanks for the info. The undersea polar volcanoes were just discovered so are not incorporated into that data of course.

I just looked at the ridge on an undersea topography map. It is huge with MANY explosive eruptions.

[jimfinster]

Dumbocrat:

#1. The scientists working on the artic volcanoes say that they are not a significant cause of melting, although they are releasing lots of CO2. Until someone proves differently, that is the story.

#2. There will be winners and losers from global warming. For example, Greenland is melting very quickly, and there is currently a big rush to mine minerals and oil from newly exposed areas.

Some areas that are currently farmed will become desert. Some areas not farmed now will become viable farmland in the future.

[dumbocrat]

Posted by jimfinster at 04:58 PM : Jul 08, 2008

ok, thanks for the response. I feel that since only 1 quick study that discovered the emissions has been performed, that there is MUCH science yet to learn and discover about these eruptions. It will be very interesting to see calculations of CO2 output matched up against already document atmosphere co2 level rises

[dumbocrat]

jimfinster..

As a scientist what is your professional opinion of the following:

1. The recently discovered sub artic volcanoes spewing lava and co2 out under the polar ice cap. Just started erupting 10 years ago at the same time Polar ice started major melts.

2. Wouldn''t a global warming of a few degrees open up milions of acres of land in Northern Canada and Russia to Agriculture and food production for the first time? Would this not open up huge land masses for human populations and food production?

Thanks

[jimfinster]

Excellent, What is your take on the undersea volcanoes in the arctic recently discovered? Seriously, I would like a geologist opinion.

Posted by Dumbocrat


The scientists working there, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, say it is not a significant cause of melting. I know this is a right-wing talking point, but I have seen no scientific evidence to back it up.

[dumbocrat]

FYI, most scientists tend to be independents and pretty unpolitical. I have worked as a scientist (geologist) for over 30 years, and that is my experience.

Posted by jimfinster at 04:38 PM : Jul 08, 2008

Excellent, What is your take on the undersea volcanoes in the arctic recently discovered? Seriously, I would like a geologist opinion.

[jimfinster]

We are in awe of your repeated posting of the same thing.

Posted by jimfinster at 04:30 PM : Jul 08, 2008

Thank You. I am in awe of how liberals want to blame the US for nature''''s periodic cycles. I''''m sure these Volcanoes are the result of a secret Bush Chenny neocon conspiracy.

Posted by Dumbocrat


FYI, most scientists tend to be independents and pretty unpolitical. I have worked as a scientist (geologist) for over 30 years, and that is my experience.

[dumbocrat]

We are in awe of your repeated posting of the same thing.

Posted by jimfinster at 04:30 PM : Jul 08, 2008

Thank You. I am in awe of how liberals want to blame the US for nature''s periodic cycles. I''m sure these Volcanoes are the result of a secret Bush Chenny neocon conspiracy.

[jimfinster]

Ban VOLCANOES NOW!

Posted by Dumbocrat


We are in awe of your repeated posting of the same thing.

[jimfinster]

Just to reiterate, so you did not grasp the first time:

you: CO2 is a small %, therefore it does not matter

me: just because something is small in % does not make it innocuous


Now do you understand ?

[dumbocrat]

Fire Under Arctic Ice: ScienceDaily June 26, 2008
The paper, which was co-authored by 22 investigators from nine institutions in four countries, was published in the journal Nature.

A series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade. The report states that the large volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The volcanoes formed along the Gakkel Ridge, a lengthy crack in the ocean crust where two rocky plates are spreading apart, pulling new melted rock to the surface.

The eruptions discharge large amounts of carbon dioxide CO2, helium, trace metals and heat into the water over long distances.

Scientists at NOAA''s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory have put together a chart showing Arctic ice relatively stable until a precipitous decline began in 1999 the very year the Arctic eruptions started.

In April, the World Wildlife Fund published a study, showing Arctic ice has shrunk from 13 million square kilometers to just 3 million.
What the WWF didn''t mention was that by March of this year the Arctic ice had recovered to 14 million square kilometers and that ice cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska was at its highest level ever recorded. Ice freezes Ice melts That''s what ice does.
Al Gore DOES deserve the Nobel prize, but for Economics not Science. He found a way to profit from this scam!

Ban VOLCANOES NOW!

[lochlan-2009]

Nothing to do with my point, it has to do with your point of .038% arsenic or cyanide in my body compared to carbon dioxide.

[jimfinster]

"That is the logical outcome of your argument, ie that a small amount does not matter."

And the logical outcome of your argument is tthat you want to remove all CO2 from the air, since, of course, we want no arsenic or cyanide in our bodies. Is this all you''''ve got, moronic statements?

Posted by lochlan



I never said that. You are getting desperate now :)